Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:17pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

I don't know about Canadian law where this article was published, but there was an awful lot of talk about U.S. law.

In the U.S. it was ruled in Golan v. Gonzales and Golan v. Holder that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests."

The proceeding was in reference to URAA restorations as 17 U.S.C §104A does not authorize them (true, Congressman may be illiterate and botched what was written).

So these movies that were GATT restored ARE in the public domain (at least in the United States).

This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-07 04:17:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 8:19pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

No. This is a very specific decision that states that people who used the previously public domain works to create new derivative works prior to implementation of the URAA provisions had THEIR speech impacted by the implementation of the new copyright provisions.

Effectively, the URAA provisons have only been ruled unconstitutional in respect of how they apply to one specific group of people in one specific jurisdiction within the US. This has neither repealed nor negated the laws in any of the other federal court jurisdictions in the US and has no impact on the use of these works by people who are not part of the specific group whose speech was impacted ("reliance parties" under the act.)

The statement that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain" is somewhat misleading because there is no such statute that reflects this. The idea that once PD always PD is based soley on historical principles and practices and not on specific laws.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 9:25pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

17 U.S.C §104A (e) (B)(i) The Register of Copyrights shall publish in the Federal Register, commencing not later than 4 months after the date of restoration for a particular nation and every 4 months thereafter for a period of 2 years, lists identifying restored works and the ownership thereof if a notice of intent to enforce a restored copyright has been filed.

So even assuming that the ruling is only jurisdictional or appealed, there would still have to exist a notice of intent.

And since neither restored work nor restoration have been defined, it makes the law useless.

What gets me is - why would someone care if the supposed rights' holders haven't even cared for well over a decade whether these movies are being viewed as public domain?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:57am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

The notice of intent register was a blanket notice to all reliance parties that could be made in the first two years after restoration. After the 2 year period an individual GATT/URAA copyright registration or individual notices to reliance parties were the course for copyright owners of works restored by the legislation, as mentioned in 17 USC §104A (e) (2)

Restoration of copyright was automatic. NIEs were the way the copyright owners notified all "reliance parties" at the same time that they would be enforcing their restored copyright.

All of the quarterly registers including the thousands of works that NIEs were lodged for in the first two years are available at the USCO site here

GATT/URAA registrations from after that date are available in the copyright database on the same site.

And, for the record, people who commenced using the work after 1 Jan 1996 are NOT "reliance parties". Instead, they are infringers of the restored copyright. There are many users of the Internet Archive who are concerned that the movies that they watch and download here are free from copyright. Many of them do not like the idea of becoming copyright infringers, even by accident.

17 USC §104A
(d)Remedies for infringement of restored copyrights.
(1)Enforcement of copyright in restored works in the absence of a reliance party. As against any party who is not a reliance party, the remedies provided in chapter 5 of this title [17 USC § §501 et seq.] shall be available on or after the date of restoration of a restored copyright with respect to an act of infringement of the restored copyright that is commenced on or after the date of restoration.


And I am sorry but "restored work" is clearly defined in the law. A restored work is defined as being the original works to which restored copyright is being applied under the act.

17 USC §104A (h)
(5)
The term "restored copyright" means copyright in a restored work under this section.
(6)
The term "restored work" means an original work of authorship that--

(A)
is protected under subsection (a);
(B)
is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;
(C)
is in the public domain in the United States due to--

(i)
noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;
(ii)
lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or
(iii)
lack of national eligibility;

(D)
has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and
(E)
if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.



This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 08:57:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:19am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

Beat you to that by 5 minutes.

Again I wonder - why would you care if the supposed rights' holders haven't even cared for well over a decade whether these movies are being viewed as public domain?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 1:45am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

No you are about 5 hours behind

And the answer to your question is in my post immeadiately above.

"And, for the record, people who commenced using the work after 1 Jan 1996 are NOT "reliance parties". Instead, they are infringers of the restored copyright. There are many users of the Internet Archive who are concerned that the movies that they watch and download here are free from copyright. Many of them do not like the idea of becoming copyright infringers, even by accident."


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: fedup Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:27pm
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

another snitch

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 12:51am
Forum: movies Subject: Re: 100 Movies In The Public Domain

ok there is a definition for restored works:

(6) The term “restored work” means an original work of authorship that —

(A) is protected under subsection (a);

(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;

(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to —

(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;

(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or

(iii) lack of national eligibility;

(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and

(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.